Show Posts
1
Getty Images Letter Forum / How DO I Respond To A Getty Letter?
« on: April 05, 2011, 09:40:19 PM »
Received a Getty Letter today 04/05/2011 for a website I took down 3/30/2011. It says unauthorized use of Getty images photograph.
Some websites say not to contact them, but yours says to contact them. I'm not sure what to do.
The cease and desist letter is part of the front (pg 1) then an invoice looking page called settlement demand with image details (pg2). Mine is $600 which is still exhorbitant since I closed my online bath and body business due to no sales. I did a websearch and found the image on google images and no copyright. I made sure to use pictures that were not copyrighted and were public domain. And ps why is google not being sued for making these images available?
Page 3 is remittance information of where to send payment and this is where it gets sticky because pg 1 is 3/31/2011 and page 3 is dated settlement demand date 3/29/2011. How do you have a demand date before receipt of the letter??? (Page 1 also says payment must be received in 14 days - no discount as other people have noted).
And what is the action when all images were removed prior to the Getty Letter being received because you went out of business?
Page 4-5 is FAQ and pg 6 is grayscale image of said picture. The letter is addressed with incorrect spelling to my now out of business company, which was an LLC (which the state of NC considers as a sole proprietorship if it's a single member, which it was).
This is a letter I found on another Getty Letter forum (do I use it as a reponse and put fill in the necessary details?:
Getty Images
Licence Compliance Team
116 Bayham Street
London
NW1 0AB
Your reference ***********
Dear Sirs,
Re: Our client *********
We refer to your letter to our client regarding reference ******** dated the April 2007. Please note our instructions in this matter and address all further communications to us.
Our client confirms the photographic images referred to in your above reference (“the image”) have been used by our client on their website www.*********.com. We are, however, unable to comment on your client’s ability to assert copyright in the image or take action for infringement having been provided with no evidence as to ownership or exclusive licence.
Our client does not admit liability, and immediately removed the images from their web site upon receipt of your letter and confirms they will not use the images in the future. The images were provided to our client by a 3rd party, who also asserts rights to these images.
The images were therefore provided to our client in circumstances where they did not know, and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted or was asserted by Getty as copyright was asserted as being owned by another party. The images provided to our client did not contain the Getty logo or any other source information. There is certainly no flagrancy as to our client’s intent which was entirely innocent.
Under Section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the Act”) there is no entitlement for the claimant to recover damages where the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe that alternative copyright subsisted in the work. Your claim for a royalty payment under a notional licence agreement described as a demand for payment is a claim for damages and as such would, in our opinion, fail.
You therefore have no grounds for claiming entitlement to payment whatsoever.
Should your company commence proceedings on the grounds outlined in your previous correspondence we reserve the right to refer to this letter on the question of costs and would hope this will now end the matter. As previously indicated, our client has removed “the images” and undertakes not to use the images at any time in the future, this action was taken despite our client not being provided with any evidence of ownership or exclusive licence by you but is of the opinion that there is contested ownership which is outside his concern.
Yours sincerely
Some websites say not to contact them, but yours says to contact them. I'm not sure what to do.
The cease and desist letter is part of the front (pg 1) then an invoice looking page called settlement demand with image details (pg2). Mine is $600 which is still exhorbitant since I closed my online bath and body business due to no sales. I did a websearch and found the image on google images and no copyright. I made sure to use pictures that were not copyrighted and were public domain. And ps why is google not being sued for making these images available?
Page 3 is remittance information of where to send payment and this is where it gets sticky because pg 1 is 3/31/2011 and page 3 is dated settlement demand date 3/29/2011. How do you have a demand date before receipt of the letter??? (Page 1 also says payment must be received in 14 days - no discount as other people have noted).
And what is the action when all images were removed prior to the Getty Letter being received because you went out of business?
Page 4-5 is FAQ and pg 6 is grayscale image of said picture. The letter is addressed with incorrect spelling to my now out of business company, which was an LLC (which the state of NC considers as a sole proprietorship if it's a single member, which it was).
This is a letter I found on another Getty Letter forum (do I use it as a reponse and put fill in the necessary details?:
Getty Images
Licence Compliance Team
116 Bayham Street
London
NW1 0AB
Your reference ***********
Dear Sirs,
Re: Our client *********
We refer to your letter to our client regarding reference ******** dated the April 2007. Please note our instructions in this matter and address all further communications to us.
Our client confirms the photographic images referred to in your above reference (“the image”) have been used by our client on their website www.*********.com. We are, however, unable to comment on your client’s ability to assert copyright in the image or take action for infringement having been provided with no evidence as to ownership or exclusive licence.
Our client does not admit liability, and immediately removed the images from their web site upon receipt of your letter and confirms they will not use the images in the future. The images were provided to our client by a 3rd party, who also asserts rights to these images.
The images were therefore provided to our client in circumstances where they did not know, and had no reason to believe that copyright subsisted or was asserted by Getty as copyright was asserted as being owned by another party. The images provided to our client did not contain the Getty logo or any other source information. There is certainly no flagrancy as to our client’s intent which was entirely innocent.
Under Section 97 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (“the Act”) there is no entitlement for the claimant to recover damages where the defendant did not know, and had no reason to believe that alternative copyright subsisted in the work. Your claim for a royalty payment under a notional licence agreement described as a demand for payment is a claim for damages and as such would, in our opinion, fail.
You therefore have no grounds for claiming entitlement to payment whatsoever.
Should your company commence proceedings on the grounds outlined in your previous correspondence we reserve the right to refer to this letter on the question of costs and would hope this will now end the matter. As previously indicated, our client has removed “the images” and undertakes not to use the images at any time in the future, this action was taken despite our client not being provided with any evidence of ownership or exclusive licence by you but is of the opinion that there is contested ownership which is outside his concern.
Yours sincerely